Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'?
Submitted by newt on Sat, 11/24/2012 - 13:49Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'?
by Murray N. Rothbard
This article was written in the mid-1950s under the byline "Aubrey Herbert," a pseudonym Rothbard used in the periodical Faith and Freedom. It was never published.
The libertarian who is happily engaged expounding his political philosophy in the full glory of his convictions is almost sure to be brought short by one unfailing gambit of the statist. As the libertarian is denouncing public education or the Post Office, or refers to taxation as legalized robbery, the statist invariably challenges. "Well, then are you an anarchist?" The libertarian is reduced to sputtering "No, no, of course I'm not an anarchist." "Well, then, what governmental measures do you favor? What type of taxes do you wish to impose?" The statist has irretrievably gained the offensive, and, having no answer to the first question, the libertarian finds himself surrendering his case.
Thus, the libertarian will usually reply: "Well, I believe in a limited government, the government being limited to the defense of the person or property or the individual against invasion by force or fraud." I have tried to show in my article, "The Real Aggressor" in the April 1954 Faith and Freedom that this leaves the conservative helpless before the argument "necessary for defense," when it is used for gigantic measures of statism and bloodshed. There are other consequences equally or more grave. The statist can pursue the matter further: "If you grant that it is legitimate for people to band together and allow the State to coerce individuals to pay taxes for a certain service – "defense" – why is it not equally moral and legitimate for people to join in a similar way and allow the State the right to provide other services – such as post offices, "welfare," steel, power, etc.? If a State supported by a majority can morally do one, why not morally do the others?" I confess that I see no answer to this question. If it is proper and legitimate to coerce an unwilling Henry Thoreau into paying taxes for his own "protection" to a coercive state monopoly, I see no reason why it should not be equally proper to force him to pay the State for any other services, whether they be groceries, charity, newspapers, or steel. We are left to conclude that the pure libertarian must advocate a society where an individual may voluntarily support none or any police or judicial agency that he deems to be efficient and worthy of his custom.
I do not here intend to engage in a detailed exposition of this system, but only to answer the question, is this anarchism? This seemingly simple question is actually a very difficult one to answer in a sentence, or in a brief yes-or-no reply. In the first place, there is no accepted meaning to the word "anarchism" itself. The average person may think he knows what it means, especially that it is bad, but actually he does not. In that sense, the word has become something like the lamented word "liberal," except that the latter has "good" connotations in the emotions of the average man. The almost insuperable distortions and confusions have come both from the opponents and the adherents of anarchism. The former have completely distorted anarchist tenets and made various fallacious charges, while the latter have been split into numerous warring camps with political philosophies that are literally as far apart as communism and individualism. The situation is further confused by the fact that, often, the various anarchist groups themselves did not recognize the enormous ideological conflict between them.
Thomas Jefferson was a 'Logical Anarchist'
I really liked that description in the book THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS.
I think the libertarian position
of thinking of the state as okay for enforcing contracts and helping us resist the use of force is a natural bridge position as someone is coming out of statism. It's also natural for that position to drift toward anarchy since that position provides a more concentrated view to see how the state can still not accomplish those things without corruption.
This short-of-anarchy position is the one statists are most likely to be respectful of because it holds up as consistent in debates with statists who are pretty far from seeing where the state will fail at even the minimum. It's a comfortable position for a libertarian who gets to above the left-right paradigm at least, but anarchy calls to him.
Defend Liberty!
Only
The philosophically and logically consistent ones.
http://lionsofliberty.com/
Consistent?
I'm as consistent as the trade winds, and I as a Libertarian see Anarchists as WORTHLESS in the defense of liberty, because they try and blame the worlds evils on government. They don't know what it is that threatens our liberty or why somebody would CHOOSE to take another persons liberty with force.
They need to believe that liberty is what wins in a free market of violence, and how they can pull this off when surrounded by nothing but covetous people who use their vote like a fist is beyond me. They must really think people are stupid animals and retards.
Libertarians CONSISTENTLY stand with justice because they know were and how to serve justice, by defending liberty with force.
The worst part is, an Anarchist knows where justice starts, they love liberty, but when the rubber hits the road, the won't defend it. When the time comes to defend liberty with force, I have no doubt that they'll act surprised by mans violent and covetous nature, and then roll out what it was they actually wanted; and judging by their words, that's a tyranny bought and sold to the highest bidder in a free market of violence.
Depends
They can be. I've been studying Eastern Philosophy recently, and reading much of the works of Lao Tzu I think he truly holds a spot in the libertarian tradition, he would be a prime example of a libertarian who is an anarchist. He strongly opposes any form of state interference and regimentation. I'm actually surprised libertarians don't bring his name up at all.
I tend to think most Libertarians that find a role for a minimal Government would fall into the category of Minarchists; much like Mises, Rothbard, Bastiat, Rand, Nock, Hayek, etc. A minimal anarchist State, smallest government possible, where it's only powers be negative ones. Libertarians don't necessarily reject all forms of Government, those that see a proper role and hold consistent Libertarian Principles would probably ideologically find a Minarchist state most suitable.
No.
But Anarchists want to believe they serve liberty, even though they refuse to defend it with force and ignore what threatens our liberty; those who reject morality and choose force to take what they covet.
At their core, Anarchists are agents of change, Judas Goats and liars who hide in a crowd of people trying to use them to destroy what they hate; a current system of government, and if challenged they can't explain themselves.
An Anarchist will scream secession, a Libertarian will scream nullification. A Libertarian wants justice, an Anarchist wants chaos so they can replace the chaos with what they can't openly speak of because it contradicts everything they claim to want.
Who Promotes Nullification?
You say, "An Anarchist will scream secession, a Libertarian will scream nullification. A Libertarian wants justice...."
And yet who literally wrote the book on Nullification? The same Tom Woods whose entire body of work you and your hatred are prepared to throw out the window.
Have you read that Murphy article yet, or are you not open to other ideas? You claim no one will answer you. Murphy has answered you, so you ignore him, which is what you claim the Rothbardians do.
Excuse me?
"And yet who literally wrote the book on Nullification? The same Tom Woods...."
No, Jefferson and Madison literally wrote the 'book' on nullification.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison
He plays a good pipe. He knows I support nullification.
If he throws out justice saying there's no legitimate purpose to initiate force, if he wants to pretend that the west was a model for non-aggression, then yes, I'm going to throw out anything Tom Woods says from now on.
Keep in mind, I don't possess any eraser that can make his words go away. All I can do is ask questions that I know he can't answer, because if this is what he actually believes, he'll talk himself into the same corner all Anarchists talk themselves into.
I'll bet there are plenty of Native Americans who'd have something interesting to say about the wild west, non-aggression, and mans covetous nature?
Rather ignorant.
Who has told you those things?
FreedomsReigning
Is obsessed with hating on anarchists, and insisting upon the need for a State, without which the "covetous" nature of man will destroy the universe . He fails to explain how giving the most covetous of men the tool of a State monopoly on violence helps the situation .
http://lionsofliberty.com/
If I hated Anarchists, I'd just watch them get destroyed.
"He fails to explain how giving the most covetous of men the tool of a State monopoly on violence helps the situation"
A monopoly on force? Do you think you DON'T have the right to defend yourself, even against the police, and if not, is it really the states fault or the fault of your peers when you face a jury?
Do you understand how divided government works? If I was what you paint me as, I would want one police force, a national police force, controlled by a central government.
What an Anarchist wants is a free market of violence, and they can't explain why that is, but you can hear in their words as they shower people with ridicule and talk circles around justice, pretending the evils in human history can be blamed on government rather than what causes one person to choose violence to take what they covet.
Anarchists are Judas Goats and liars, and I love listening to them try and talk their way around what they can't acknowledge.
If you have a problem with who ends up in charge in a Constitutional Republic of elected representatives, just wait until you see who ends up in charge when you sell justice to the highest bidder in a free market of violence.
ROFL. You aint seen nothing yet Anarchist.